Critical Thinking Blog #2

When I think of "pseudoscience," I think of Scientology (No offense to any Scientologists in the room. I'd love to hear more about your religion). Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard first detailed Dianetics in an early 1950's comic book. Which, as it seems to me, is a pretty inglorious introduction, considering that it is a cornerstone of the Scientologist religion. Dianetics is a "non-germ theory" approach to mental health, which rejects traditional psychiatric medicine. Most of the scientific community sees Scientology as a pseudoscience - all of the evidence in it's favor lacks any empirical backing, leaving nothing else to establish it's validity.

The dispute between intelligent design and evolution is essentially a disagreement between science and pseudoscience. Stemming from a simple observation about finches, Darwin's theory of evolution has been reinforced by countless scientific studies, with over two hundred years' worth of widely accepted and research. 

  Creationism, on the other hand, works backward. In attempt to build their building from the roof down, creationism begins with the facts, the Biblical truths, and seeks to build a basic famework underneath their apparently floating ceiling. Unfortunately for creationists, it has been nearly impossible to provide any scientifically acceptable evidence supporting their claims. Despite this, many creationists insist that their evidently pseudoscientific ideals be taught in schools alongside Darwin's almost universally-accepted theory of evolution.

How can a peoples' faith be so unshakable that they will knowingly toss aside a conclusion that science has been coming to for centuries, in favor of an archaic text that is largely outdated in the eyes of modern society, government, and morality?

Critical Thinking Blog #1

Part one:

Critical thinking, to me, is the careful and thoughtful assessment/interpretation of a situation, idea, or, well, anything I guess. Critical thinking is definitely (as far as I can tell) an acquired skill, not necessarily a universal trait. I've known tons of people who, however intelligent, lacked the ability to discern and evaluate even the simplest of situations. To be able to think critically, you have to be able to analyze as many aspects of a problem as possible.

Even though it seems like a no-skills-required job, working at TJ Maxx requires that I use critical thinking all the time. Just for the sake of setting the scene, my official title is "Customer Service Coordinator," which is just another way of saying that I am directly in charge of all customer service situations during my increasingly-infrequent shifts. Without fail, I always encounter a customer who is upset with me for whatever reason, and I need to think about not only company policy, but the customer's wishes, how far I'm willing to bend the rules for her (all of the angry customers I've encountered are women. Maybe men don't care that much?), how long it will take me, and a thousand other inconsequential things. So basically, any social or professional situation in which I should use extreme caution/tact requires me to think critically.

Just the other day, - today, actually - I had an insatiable urge to make a comment in my political science class, and, without thinking about the pertinence of my comment, I heard myself blurt out one of the most unintelligible, irrelevant things I've said in at least three days. Needless to say, I felt like a moron. That, and my urge to speak in class was satisfied, and will probably stay on the down-low for at least a few weeks.

Actually, I lied. Last night, I went out to a going-away dinner for a coworker, and, in front of everyone, I proceeded to make an asinine comment, just for the sake of having something to say. I didn't say anything offensive, nor did I say anything unintelligent, I just ... made myself look dumb. I'm stuck with my coworkers for a lot longer than the extent of this semester, so I suppose that one was the bigger blunder.

Part two:

I have ambiguous feelings towards the term "intellectualism." Is it just the practice thinking a lot, or maybe being, like, hella smart? Either way, I think it's a pretty spineless word, with no real resonance, at least in my minds eye (ear?).  

When I think of the word "intellectual," however, I can't help but think of it being used in a jeering way, to poke at someone who is not just intelligent, but haughty or arrogant as well. That being said, I wouldn't mind being called an intellectual for a few reasons - first and foremost, I like being called smart. Second, I can't help but picturing some tobacco-spittin', refrigerator-in-the-front-yard hick (I'm slowly realizing that I have a hard time being P.C., so no offense to anyone who may consider themselves hicks. I've met plenty of lovely people who, come to find out, happened to have a rusted-out kitchen appliance in their yard.) pettily slinging the word at the end of a wordfight (that s/he probably lost) with the man in Birkenstocks driving the Volvo. Anyway, in my mind, "intellectual" has a negative connotation, even though I personally don't perceive it to be anything less than a compliment. If thinking a lot, driving a luxurious Scandinavian car, and wearing sensible shoes is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

I really like the words "logic" and "reason." If there is anything that is more satisfying than taking a problem and systematically dissecting it to come to a conclusion, then I can't think of it.  I wish I had some stupid, too-specific image in my mind that I could use to halfway articulate how I feel about these words, but I don't. The concepts of logic and reason are too vast for me to even begin to pinpoint them. Long story short: logic and reason have overwhelmingly positive correlations.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't believe that one's SES has anything to do with one's capability to be smart, charming, and just a great, fun person. I don't care what you have in your lawn, where you store your appliances, or if you have a penchant for Skoal. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just drawing on (what I hope are) archetypal images of non-smart, non-critically-thinking people.  

Pre-Reading Blog #1

College has been pretty good to me. I'm infinitely glad that I chose to attend a JC, because it gave me time to sort through my options and find what I liked to do, and what I may want to do with my life. Out of high school, I was hell-bent on becoming an architect, which I now know would have been a disastrous choice. Apparently, being an architect requires loads and loads of calculus and physics, neither of which I enjoy/excel at/ever want to do again. While I may have missed out on part of the "college experience" by going to Sierra, I avoided making a $40,000 mistake by going directly for a university and making a drastic major-change two semesters in.

I didn't enjoy high school. I skated through it, exerting as little effort as possible, at least when it came to homework. I enjoyed learning in class, and I always scored well on quizzes and tests, but I never thought that homework was necessary, which caused my grades to suffer.

Anyway, I'm putting forth a lot more effort now, and I'm ready to work hard to get where I want to go. I'm excited to actually use my classes to my advantage to help me form a distinct personal image, I guess, or maybe to better define myself. 

Why are college students more inclined to work toward their academic goals, or, for that matter, to even maintain an academic goal at all? 

Rationalism - believing that reason alone is a source of knowledge, independent of experience.

Anti-Rationalism - the opposite of rationalism, the belief that sensual or emotional experience leads to knowledge.

Fundamentalism - the strict adherence to a specific doctrine of thought or ideology.